Talk:Epicaricacy

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should there be a Wikipedia article on Epicaricacy?[edit]

What would make more sense would be for this term to re-direct to Schadenfreude, from which most of this material has been lifted wholesale. betsythedevine (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The words mean the same thing, but they are different. --evrik ^(talk) 19:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is unnecessary. If there are two words meaning more or less the same thing, then they should each have an entry in Wiktionary, but not in an encyclopedia. And Schadenfreude is the better-established word. Grafen (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite the policy for either of those statements? I imagine you can't. I see that the middle part of the article just got stripped out by someone and placed over in schadenfreude. No matter, what's left is still notable. --evrik ^(talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This article is more than a dictionary entry. In fact, it makes a good companion article to the schadenfreude article. If this article has to go, then so should the schadenfreude one. It has cultural references, and has a place on {{Emotion-footer}}. That's three points on why it is notable. --evrik ^(talk) 18:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic has supplied the answer to evrik's question about citing the policy. From WP:NAD in relation to Wikipedia: "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing, or different spellings for the same word, are duplicate articles that should be merged. For examples: petrol and gasoline; colour and color." And by contrast in relation to Wiktionary: "Different words warrant different articles (e.g. petrol and gasoline)." Grafen (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Fayenatic london supplied an answer, but must have misread the policy.

According to the discussion, the page should redirect to Schadenfreude, so I am doing so. --C S (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That revision was premature. I am going to revert the change. --evrik ^(talk) 18:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I'm a little concerned that "English Subtitle", who had previously been accused of being Evrik's sockpuppet, has made few edits to Wikipedia and not for a long time, only to show up one hour after Evrik reverted the redirect. --C S (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ucalegon[edit]

I restored the 'see also section. A ucalegon is someone whose house burns down, and it is from ancient greek literature. There is a link. --evrik ^(talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Schadenfreude is a word in common English usage (despite its German etymology) for the emotion Aristotle called epikarikakieia. Epicaricacy is an inkhorn term derived from the Greek root which has not current usage, although it is preserved in dictionaries of unusual words. Instead of forking information about this emotion, including what Aristotle said about it, into two articles, I think there should be one article under the more common word. This article should also mention the word "epicaricacy". Evrik has done good historical research that I hope will be included in the merged article. I would also like to express my regret that the AfD I filed about this may have been inappropriate and caused much more upset than this question deserved. I did not, even when I filed it, want the article and its history and its talk page to be wiped off the memory of Wikipedia--not that there was much in the article at that time. What I wanted to have happen was a broader consensus among users (one that Evrik would respect instead of just overriding) that there should be one article not two. I now discover, many days and many unhappy arguments later, that Wikipedia has a different procedure to get exactly what I wanted, a procedure that would not have made Evrik so unhappy if I had filed it, Merge with a listing (for controversial mergers) at Proposed Mergers. I am going to try to start that process now. betsythedevine (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge, but let the AFD run its course -- it may well end up with a merge & redirect anyway. It would be neither helpful nor necessary to start a separate, simultaneous process. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]